Natural: A Benchmark, Not a Bias

Abstract

I expect that most scholars, citizens, and policymakers would agree with the prevous paragraph. But, particularly in arenas where heated disagreements are possible (that is, nearly everything), crafting policies in the public interest is hardly straightforward. With regard to natural resource policy, why has policymaking seemed to grow increasingly contentious, even litigious? Why do some people argue that “natural” is a bias, instead of a simple descriptor? I contend that focusing on the “natural,” including concepts such as biological integrity and health, provides evidence-supported benchmarks for understanding the consequences of natural resource policy options. Such benchmarks are essential for choosing policy options that are in line with today’s laws. Further, in defining benchmarks of “natural,” I find that scientific evidence supports maintaining or restoring native species. Finally, I believe that efforts to exclude natural scientists who support natural benchmarks from discussions of policy, under the guise of avoiding biased “personal policy preferences,” is shortsighted and counter to the public interest.